Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the City of Lander and dismissing Plaintiffs' negligence claim on grounds of governmental immunity, holding that the district court erred both procedurally and as a matter of law when it granted summary judgment.Plaintiffs found a bat in their home and called the Animal Control Division of the Lander Police Department. The bat was captured but escaped before it could be tested for rabies. Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking damages for the cost of the rabies vaccines and mental anguish. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court procedurally erred when it granted summary judgment on grounds not raised by the parties without giving notice and a time to respond; and (2) the City was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed facts of record. View "Cornella v. City of Lander, Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment in favor of Danny Brock on his negligence claim against Mark Edwards, holding that the circuit court erred in overruling the motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) filed by Peter Dunne, defendant ad litem for Edwards.Brock was injured in a work-related accident involving co-worker Edwards. Brock filed a petition alleging a negligence claim against Edwards. Edwards died before trial, and Dunne was substituted as defendant ad litem. The jury returned a verdict in Brock's favor, and the circuit court entered judgment for $873,000 in Brock's favor. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in overruling Dunne's motions for directed verdict and JNOV because Edwards was immune from liability pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.120.1 and Brock failed to make a submissible case of common law negligence. View "Brock v. Dunne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Defendants in this personal injury case, holding that there was no error.Arica Linton went into premature labor with her son, Nicholas, and an emergency cesarean section was performed. One year later, Nicholas was diagnosed with a white matter brain injury. Nicholas Linton brought this action against Defendants - healthcare providers - alleging that they failed to timely treat Arica, timely deliver Nicholas, timely perform a cesarean section, and diagnose and treat fetal distress. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an expert's alternative causation testimony. View "Linton v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding that Defendant was not entitled to an award of workers' compensation benefits because his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, holding that there was no error.Defendant, a field service specialist for DISH Network, Inc,. was an a car accident after he choked on a sandwich and blacked out while traveling to his first appointment. Defendant sought workers' compensation benefits. The ALJ awarded benefits, but the Commission denied compensation because Defendant failed to prove his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. View "Boothe v. DISH Network, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court made permanent a preliminary writ of prohibition it issued to prevent the release of Darin Lutman's medical records, holding that the circuit court erred in ordering the release of the records because they were protected by the physician-patient privilege.A vehicle driven by Lutman crossed the centerline on a Missouri highway and struck a vehicle driven by Sondra Murrell, who died. Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death suit against Lutman. After Plaintiffs filed notices of depositions and subpoenas for Lutman's medical records with Compass Health Network and Missouri Psychiatric Center, Lutman filed a motion to quash, arguing that the requested information was protected by the physician-patient privilege. The circuit court overruled Lutman's motion to quash. Lutman then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that Lutman did not waive the physician-patient privilege and that the circuit court erred in ordering the disclosure of his medical records. View "State ex rel. Lutman v. Honorable Baker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the circuit court in this case brought by Pamela and Kelly Allen after Pamela fell down a flight of stairs in the Common Pleas Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, holding that the circuit court erred in part.The jury in this case returned verdicts holding the State ninety percent at fault and Pamela ten percent at fault and further found against Kelly on his loss of consortium state. The State appealed and the Allens cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment as to Kelly's loss of consortium claim and otherwise vacated the judgment, holding that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the phrase "public entity's property" in Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.600.1(2). View "Allen v. State" on Justia Law

A patient sued a hospital after learning that a hospital employee intentionally disclosed the patient’s health information in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The patient alleged the disclosure breached the hospital’s contractual obligations to him. The superior court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the hospital if the jury found that the employee was not acting in the course and scope of employment when she disclosed the patient’s information. The jury so found, leading to judgment in the hospital’s favor. The Alaska Supreme Court found the jury instruction erroneously applied the rule of vicarious liability to excuse liability for breach of contract. "A party that breaches its contractual obligations is liable for breach regardless of whether the breach is caused by an employee acting outside the scope of employment, unless the terms of the contract excuse liability for that reason." The Court therefore reversed judgment and remanded for further proceedings, in particular to determine whether a contract existed between the patient and hospital and, if so, the contract’s terms governing patient health information. View "Guy v. Providence Health & Services Washington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Melissa Kampmeyer's loss of consortium claim brought after her husband, Steven Kampmeyer, was injured in an accident, holding that Tenn. Code Ann. 9-8-402(a)(1) requires claimants to give written notice of their claim to the Division of Claims and Risk Management as a condition precedent to recovery.Steven was injured when his car collided with a Tennessee state vehicle parked in the roadway. Steven gave written notice of his claim to the Tennessee Division of Claims and Risk Management, which transferred the claim to the Tennessee Claims Commission. Steven and Melissa then filed a complaint with the Claims Commission. The complaint contained Melissa's loss of consortium claim, which was not in the written notice Steven gave to the Division of Claims and Risk Management. The Claims Commission dismissed Melissa's loss of consortium claim as time-barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Melissa did not give written notice of her claim to the Division of Claims and Risk Management within the one-year statute of limitations, her loss of consortium claim was time-barred. View "Kampmeyer v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Curtis Olson failed to show the requisite "minimal merit" on a critical element of his breach of contract claim and thus could not defeat Jane Doe's anti-SLAPP motion.Doe and Olson each owned units in the same condominium building. Doe brought a civil harassment restraining order against Olson, and as a result of court-ordered mediation, the parties agreed if they encountered each other in a public or common place "not to disparage one another." Doe later filed a civil lawsuit against Olson seeking damages. Olson cross-complained for breach of contract and specific performance, and Doe moved to strike Olson's cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal's judgment insofar as it reversed the trial court's order granting Doe's special motion to strike the breach of contract clause of action with respect to statements in Doe's civil complaint, holding that Doe had no obligation under the contract to refrain from making disparaging statements in litigation, and therefore, Olson could not defeat Doe's anti-SLAPP motion. View "Olson v. Doe" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the estate and surviving parents of thirteen-year-old Gabriel Miranda, Jr., filed a products liability action against Navistar for the wrongful death of their son. Gabriel fell to his death after opening the rear emergency exit of a school bus while it was travelling at highway speed.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court correctly dismissed this suit on the ground that a federal regulation promulgated by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 (FMVSS 217), conflicts with and therefore preempts a state common law duty to include an automatic lock. The court agreed with the district court's reading of FMVSS 217 that a school bus manufacturer must outfit school buses with rear emergency exits that can be opened in only one way: by operating a manual release mechanism. Therefore, the court reasoned that it would be impossible to comply with the regulation while implementing the electronic locking mechanism change argued for by plaintiffs. View "Estate of Gabriel Miranda, Jr. v. Navistar, Inc." on Justia Law